For most of the last century the default currency for international settlements has been the US dollar. This has given America ultimate power over international trade. In recent months, the US wielded this power against Iran, making life extremely difficult for all Iranians. Importantly it has interrupted oil trade with India, China and Japan. Furthermore SWIFT, the Belgian-based international banking settlement agency, has halted all Iranian interbank transfers.

The sharp lesson for nations in Asia is that their own trade security is best served by having an alternative settlement medium to the dollar and other Western currencies. This function historically belongs to gold, but that is a last resort for central banks, and besides, many Asian central banks are gold-poor. This plays into China’s hands.

China is increasingly keen to provide her own currency for trade settlement purposes. She sees the dollar-monopoly as an important security threat, which is why she has in the past sought alternatives. She is now cautiously promoting her own currency for this role and is developing an offshore renminbi capital market in Hong Kong. At the same time she is evolving from manufacturing consumer goods towards capital goods, for which Hong Kong is the natural financing centre.

Her targeted growth-markets are other rapidly developing economies, as well as the whole Asian continent, and no longer the US and Europe. One of her key strategies through the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is to build a pan-Asian security and trade bloc in partnership with Russia, and the last element of this 10-year old plan is to settle cross-border trade without using the West’s financial system. China expects to play a major part with her currency, which explains why she is adding to her gold reserves. The relevance of gold is that China will have to show to the people of Asia that her currency has better long-term prospects than the dollar, which goes some way to explaining why so many of the countries associated with the SCO are now also accumulating the metal. This analysis is confirmed by a leaked cable from the US Embassy in Beijing as long ago as April 2009 that can be seen in GATA’s database http://www.gata.org/files/USEmbassyBeijingCable-04-28-2009.txt. As Iran and India also have SCO Observer status they are part of China’s grand strategy, and they have also been buying gold http://www.goldmoney.com/buy-gold.html.

At some stage China will need to restate her gold reserves, and given this has to be credible rather that actual, she will probably release a suitable figure showing her to be the second largest holder behind the US. However, she is treading carefully, because she has to extricate herself from monetary relationships with the West, which ideally should be a gradual process: a sudden withdrawal could lead to a global systemic collapse and undermine her own dollar investments.

The question now arises as to whether an escalation of US pressure on Iran and her oil-trading partners will provoke an announcement from China about her gold. In any event there is bound to be a growing realisation of why gold is central to the economic futures of China, Russia and the whole of Asia. China’s financial and economic objectives will completely wrong-foot the major central banks that are committed to the demonetisation of gold.

Speech given to the Committee for Monetary Research and Education

Before addressing the consequences of today’s macro-economic policies I want to tell you my philosophy. I support sound money for two very good reasons:

Firstly, it is a basic human right to choose to save, without our savings being debased by the tax of monetary inflation. Those that are worst affected by this inflation tax are not the rich, they benefit; but the poor and the barely well-off, which is why monetary inflation undermines society and why the right to sound money should be respected. If government gives itself a monopoly over money, it has a duty to protect the property rights vested in it.

Secondly, it is a basic right for us to own our own money rather than have it owned by the banks. For them to take our money and expand credit on the back of it debases it. It is an abuse of an individual’s property rights and a banking licence is a government licence to do so. If anyone else was to do this, they would be guilty of fraud. Banks should be custodians of our money, and it should not appear in their balance sheets as their property.

If we had stuck to these sound money principals, several benefits automatically follow, some of which I will briefly summarise for you, and I will have a little more to say about them in a moment:

With sound money, governments cannot print money to fund their activities, so the true cost of government becomes apparent to the electorate. The result is that in a democracy the electorate votes for small government because profligate politicians simply do not get elected. Indeed, we need sound money for democracy to work.

With sound money, governments are unable to go to war without taxpayers being conscious of the true cost. This is a great incentive for peace and an electorate that accepts the benefits of free markets, and therefore peaceful trade, is less belligerent.

With sound money, savings are protected. Prices tend to fall gradually over time, reflecting improved efficiencies in production and of economic progress generally. So the purchasing power of savings increases over the years. For a pensioner, the purchasing power of his savings grows. He can then afford the healthcare he increasingly requires as he ages, and he can afford to leave something for his family when he dies. His savings work with his needs, which is the opposite of the situation in our inflation-ridden economies. In a sound money economy, our pensioners look after themselves and need not be a burden on the state.

With sound money, business cycles do not occur. The business cycles we are familiar with are in fact credit-driven cycles, the result of central banks expanding money and overseeing bank credit. They are the result of the misconception that monetary expansion leads to growth. It doesn’t: it merely distorts the economy by favouring a select few at the expense of the many.

These are just some of the benefits of sound money; benefits we can only dream about today. So long as we have unsound money we will have difficulties that will always end in a crisis. Today, we have sunk to the point where the answer to everything is found in more money and bank credit instead of the genuine production of goods and services.

The long-term consequence of monetary inflation is that voters now believe that a government always has the money to provide everything they need. So they naturally vote for more government. They do not question the source of government’s money. They have also been encouraged to believe that the freedom for everyone to do what they want with their own money, only enriches the few, when the opposite is the case. People have become genuinely frightened by the thought of free markets. For this reason, governments regulate most of the private sector. Between government spending and government regulation, the private sector is now dominated by government interference. A minimal amount of capitalism is tolerated in economies that are otherwise socialistic; yet our ills are blamed on the only part of the economy that actually works.

The most effective curb on political ambition is sound money. But we don’t have sound money. So government abuses its monopoly power over the currency to pay for its ambitions. Fiat money gives a free rein to the ambitious politician. The First World War was made possible by German economists, led by George Knapp, the Keynes of his day. He showed the Kaiser the way to finance a war without increasing taxes. In the four years from 1913 the Reichsbank increased paper money in circulation to pay for 85% of Germany’s war expenditure for those years. Of course, after that the script did not go to plan, and as we all know it ended with the total collapse of the currency in 1923.

Collapse the currency, and you collapse savings. Savings today are continually devalued by the expansion of money and credit. Only a fool lends his money for an interest return, and savers are therefore forced to speculate to protect themselves. The result is that there is now a separate destabilising pool of foot-loose capital. It is used by the financial engineers of Wall Street and the City of London to offer higher speculative returns. It has become the feedstock for spendthrift borrowers, particularly governments, who have no intention of ever repaying it.

The damage of unsound money to business has been acute. Business cycles are actually credit cycles, the result of the central banks’ monetary policies. It is easy to understand why the expansion of money and credit drives us into cycles of boom and bust – the exact opposite of what it is meant to achieve.

Take the example of businesses operating with sound money. A business developing a new product or improving an existing one has to invest its own funds, or find a lender with savings. In either case, this takes money away from consumption, money that is reallocated into savings and from there into the proposed investment. And because this money is not spent on consumption, the labour and raw materials required for any new project become available. There is a shift of resources from consumption into savings, from savings into investment, and from there into capital goods. A balance is maintained within the economy and there is no boom and bust. It is a non-cyclical process, driven only by peoples’ economic needs. Business activity is inherently stable.

Now look at the situation when business investment is financed by newly created money and bank credit instead of savings. The process starts with the central bank lowering interest rates. Cheap credit makes investment appear attractive, so the businessman borrows to invest in his business. But many other businessmen are encouraged by the same cheap credit to do the same thing at the same time.

Businesses start investing simultaneously. The randomness has gone. But it gets worse: cheap money also supports consumption, because saving money is less attractive due to lower interest rates.

So our businessman has to bid up for labour, because it hasn’t been released by lower consumption, and he is in competition with the other businesses also taking advantage of cheap credit. He has to pay up for raw materials, for the same reasons. The combination of industry and consumers responding to cheap finance, in the short-term will drive the economy better. But with no extra resources available, prices rise due to bunched demand. And since the quantity of money in the economy has increased, its purchasing-power also falls; exacerbating price inflation even more.

And with prices now rising strongly, interest rates also now rise from artificially low levels. Our businessman’s plans are totally screwed. He got the cost of labour and raw materials completely wrong, and because interest rates have shot up, his Return-On-Investment calculations turn out to be far too optimistic. And to make matters worse, the deteriorating economic conditions that follow, as surely as night follows day, forces him to accept that his sales projections were also too optimistic.

His fellow entrepreneurs are in the same boat. Businesses start cutting back. They act as a crowd on the way up and on the way down.

The essential point is fake money has created a business cycle which didn’t exist before. It is never just a question of central banks getting their timing wrong, as many suppose.

The central bank then compounds the problems it has created by again lowering interest rates with the downturn. More than anything else it is scared of a fall in GDP, so it cannot allow the distortions and false investments of the earlier round of monetary stimulation to unwind properly.

But next time round, the businessman is not so easily tricked. He builds greater margins into his investment calculations. So the economy becomes slower to respond to a new, deeper round of interest rate cuts. The central bank has to act more aggressively to create yet more fake money, to get a result.

These credit expansions work like a ratchet, becoming more destabilising over each credit cycle.

The businessman eventually wises up, overcomes his patriotic instincts and moves his manufacturing to somewhere where at least some of the factors of production are available. He needs to plan for ten, fifteen, twenty years. He cannot afford to ride destructive credit-driven cycles of three or four years. It is cheaper for him to build a factory in the jungle and train up hard-working natives. It is unsound money that has driven him abroad more than any other factor. Over a number of these credit cycles, the economy in countries with falling savings, like the US and UK, becomes more and more dependent on consumption, and less and less on manufacturing.

And eventually, to encourage GDP growth, consumers are encouraged to actually borrow to spend and abandon saving altogether. So on every credit cycle, savings diminish and debt increases, finally accelerating to unsustainable levels of debt. And that is where we arrived in 2008. That marked the end of the road for the post-war Keynesian experiment.

So understanding our economic condition from a sound money perspective gives us a unique viewpoint. It makes it easier to see through the fog of weak money. It also allows us to see through the problems posed by reconciling contrary statistics. And it is here that the establishment deludes itself as well as the rest of us.

The abuse of the GDP statistic is the most important delusion of all, because all economic policy is directed at ensuring it grows. But we must stop and think what it actually represents. GDP is not economic output, it is its money-value, which is a very different thing. It gives us no information about the relative values of the goods and services that constitute the economy.

It is crucial to appreciate this distinction, so by way of explanation let us again assume sound money. This is like an economy operating with gold as money and without credit expansion. To keep it simple, assume that trade is in balance, and there are no net capital flows to or from other countries. Therefore, at the end of the year, there is exactly the same amount of money, or gold, as there was at the start of the year.

What does this mean for GDP? It is exactly the same of course, irrespective of actual economic activity. It doesn’t matter how much people save, because those savings are reapplied into the production of capital goods. The rest goes on consumption. It really doesn’t matter what proportion is private sector and how much is government. But if you start with a million ounces of gold, after a year you still have a million ounces of gold. The only difference is what a million ounces buys. The reconciliation between the start and the end of the year is obviously a combination of prices and how efficiently the available gold is deployed.

In practice, human nature constantly strives for improvement, so over a period of time in a free market the purchasing power of sound money increases. This was borne out by the experience of Britain, which went on the gold standard in 1821 and only went off it before the First World War. During that time, Britain freed up her economy by dropping tariffs and other restrictions on free trade, and we became the most powerful nation on earth. The purchasing power of the gold sovereign increased substantially over those ninety-odd years.

So if we look at how an economy operates in a sound-money environment, we see that the benefits of free-markets flow to consumers, savers and businesses. We can see that any attempt to measure these benefits by changes in GDP are simply absurd. It therefore follows that any change in GDP represents a change in the quantity of money in an economy and not of the level of production.

Now, for some of us this is quite a discovery. We are so used to thinking that GDP is the economy that government policies are now entirely focused on boosting it, mistaking it for the economy itself. It justifies mainstream macro-economic theory, because within that money identity, there is no differentiation between good and bad deployment of economic resources. This, in the minds of most economists, is why badly targeted government spending is no different from the productive private sector’s use of economic resources. It persuades Keynesians and Monetarists that injecting government spending into an economy or expanding the quantity of money in the economy is a valid route to recovery.

Understand this error and you understand why unemployment in the United States is already at depression levels, but according to the GDP statistic you have only just arrived at the brink of a possible economic downturn. Understand this error, and you understand the frantic attempts to get more money and credit into the economy rather than address the real issues. Understand the error of confusing the condition of an economy with its accounting identity and understand the policy mistakes yet to be made.

So we can see that governments are doing just about everything wrong. They have completely failed to understand the productive difference between free markets and government intervention. They have no knowledge of the real cost of diminishing the productive private sector, to pay for the unproductive public sector. The activities of central banks have encouraged boom-bust cycles that have led to the accumulation of debt in both private and public sectors to the point where it has finally become unsustainable. In the process, they have destroyed savings, which are the necessary pre-requisite, the bed-rock for any sustainable recovery.

This is the background to today’s crisis. Governments everywhere are now trying to borrow the largest amounts of money in history, all at the same time. And to those who say that global savings are high, I say those savings are in the hands of the Chinese and Indian workers, who wisely are more likely to buy gold and silver than our government debt.

Governments are now waking up to the fact that real economic growth is disappearing far into the future and taking their hoped-for tax revenues with it. The debt-trap has snapped firmly shut. Some countries, such as the Eurozone members, who cannot print money to finance themselves, are simply the first victims of the imbalance between the financing requirements of governments and the available capital. Others, such as the UK and US, who can print money, do so to defer funding problems and keep their borrowing costs low; but it is only a matter of time before they are found out.

Price inflation will put an end to these artificially low bond yields, if markets don’t first: it has always been this way in the past and now is no different. We already see prices measured in paper currencies rising everywhere. Commodity prices are reflecting the increased quantities of paper money and credit. Prices of essentials, such as food and energy, have been rising sharply. But there are still people who think that the risk is deflation not inflation. Presumably the Fed thinks so, since it has stated that it expects interest rates to stay at close to zero until mid-2013. They will be in for a shock, and here’s why.

They are about to learn the difference between sound money and their fiat money. Real money cannot be issued by central banks. Fiat money is an undated interest-free claim on a government whose central bank merely tells us that it is money. The difference is important, because in a depression, the purchasing power of real money, measured in goods, increases. In the same depression the purchasing power of fake money falls with the financial condition of the issuing government and with its accelerating supply. This is the dynamic behind the rise in the price of gold over the last decade.

The rising inflation I’ve talked about is measured in fiat money. The rise will accelerate because when you are in a debt trap the only way bills get paid is to issue increasing quantities of fiat money and to borrow. And remember, in a depression tax revenues collapse, while social security costs escalate. To defer the “Grecian moment” we have become unhappily familiar with, both the US and the UK will require more fiat money and bank credit than we can imagine.

So what those who worry about a depression haven’t noticed, is that we have been in one for some time. That comes of confusing GDP with real goods and services. Produce enough fake money and GDP looks good. What doesn’t is the level of unemployment. Doubtless George Knapp – remember him? The German predecessor to Keynes? – Knapp would have felt good that German GDP from 1920 to1923 looked fantastic. But then there was the small matter of a collapse in the fiat money of the day, and GDP hadn’t yet been invented anyway.

Today people are stumbling towards an awareness of some of these problems. Most visible to everyone so far is the parlous state of the banks. While it would be foolish to completely discount systemic risk, we should bear in mind two things. Firstly, the central banks are now very aware of this risk, which is different from the time of the Bear Sterns and Lehman collapses. So you can reasonably bet that every scenario that frightens us has been anticipated. The banks themselves are now acutely aware of counterparty risk. Secondly, the evolution of banking over the years has given central banks enormous control over their banking systems. It is wrong to think that you can compare the situation today to that of the banking crisis triggered by the collapse of Kredit Anstalt in 1931. The ECB in Europe only has to stand by with unlimited funds when necessary. Indeed, there has been a run on the Greek banks for at least the last eighteen months without systemic failure. All that is required is for the ECB to make its fiat money available in sufficient quantities.

In a few months we will enter 2012. The immediate stresses of today will probably diminish when enough fiat money has been thrown at them. So to my mind the two biggest headaches for next year will be increasing price inflation, the result of too much paper money chasing too few goods if you like, and rising interest rates. I do not expect the Fed to keep its promise of zero rates into 2013. I do expect them to blame unexpected stagflation.

And finally, we must understand that when it comes to resolving our current difficulties, the order of events is bound to be crisis first, solution second. I wish it could be the other way round, but that is the political reality. What we must do meanwhile is get the message home why the establishment has got its macroeconomics so wrong, and why the only solution is to progress towards sound money.

Today I have only focused on two aspects of the problem: the destabilising effects of credit-driven business cycles, and the misapplication of a statistic, GDP, which should have no importance whatsoever. There is much, much more in this sorry tale. I have touched on the role of savings, without going into how their destruction through monetary inflation is now bankrupting governments. I have not gone into the fallacies surrounding trade imbalances, which are always the result of unsound money. I have not asked how we are to feed our elderly and poor, who have become reliant on government pensions and hand-outs, which governments can increasingly ill-afford.

Please just accept, even if you don’t follow my analysis, that sound money guarantees a stable yet progressive economy where people are truly equal. It allows people to save properly for their retirement so that they will not become a burden on the state. It leads to democracy voting for small governments. It encourages peaceful trade and discourages war. It is the only path, after this mess, that leads us to long-lasting and peaceful prosperity. We really need everyone to understand this for the sake of our future.

In the last two weeks the headlines have switched from Greece to Italy. Financial and economic commentators who dismissed Greece as a small cog in the Euroland machine are now seriously alarmed and see no solution to Europe’s sovereign debt crisis other than the short-term expedient of getting the European Central Bank to print lots of money. They castigate Germany’s sound money approach, ignoring the fact that it has been central to Germany’s economic success, preferring to commend the loose-money economics of the unsuccessful “PIIGS” (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain). And when listening to them, just remember that none of them foresaw this crisis, when it was obvious to Austrian economists in the early days of the banking crisis.Keynesian and monetarists believed that the problems surfacing in the PIIGS would be resolved by economic growth, which would follow so long as governments maintained their deficit spending. As events are now proving, this analysis was flawed, which is why Keynesians are now confused. They should open their minds and absorb Austrian economic theory to gain a proper understanding of human actions and how people are affected by money and credit.

The first thing they will learn is that the economic benefits of credit expansion are a myth. All it does, by a process of capital redistribution – from savers to those who are first in line to receive the new money – is distort the economy and restrict its long-term potential. By lowering interest rates and diverting private sector resources from genuine production to government spending, the economy becomes less efficient and malinvestments occur. The mistake has been to only consider the visible benefits, such as short-term job creation, while ignoring the destructive effects of deficit financing.

The distortions created by easy money and deficit spending will naturally try to reverse themselves as surely as night follows day. The recession that follows the temporary boom is the way an economy cures itself from unsound money and government intervention. This is hard for interventionist governments to accept because it strikes at the heart of their existence. And while printing money and credit is always popular with an electorate that does not understand what is happening to their money, reversing the process is readily noticed and immensely unpopular.

This brings us back to Euroland’s problems. The creation of the euro twelve years ago allowed banks to expand credit massively in the mistaken belief that sovereign risk had been eliminated. The result was that spendthrift governments availed themselves of cheap credit. Eurozone governments, particularly the PIIGS but also France and Belgium, have squandered huge sums to prevent the unwinding of malinvestments and other economic distortions, preferring to perpetuate existing malinvestments. The only solution is for them to let the unwinding happen, which is what the financial markets (for which read reality) are now forcing them to do.

What we are seeing, the markets unwinding economic distortions from the past, is a necessary process and therefore beneficial, a point which goes completely unrecognised. If only governments had the sense to understand this, it is not too late to plan wisely for regenerated economies and a sounder Europe. Unfortunately, the gut reaction of the political class and its advisors is to continue as before at all costs, deferring this necessary adjustment and increasing its eventual severity.

There is no joy for the informed spectator in seeing continuing economic destruction. However harsh it may be in the short-term, the EU elite needs to start paying attention to Austrian School remedies to Europe’s financial woes – and fast.

One of the joys of interviewing some of the best brains in the world of finance and economics is that they alert you to important factors that perhaps you haven’t fully considered. This was my experience with Chris Martenson in Madrid last week (the interview will be posted on the GoldMoney website in the coming weeks). He reminds us that the availability and price of oil are central to our economic future.The basic argument is this: very little can happen in our lives without oil. It is required for mining, agriculture, manufacturing, transport and distribution. Global consumption is rising, and extraction has levelled off. Oil-exporting nations are consuming more, leaving smaller balances for those with oil deficits. The cost of extraction is rising sharply: whereas fifty years ago it cost one barrel of energy to extract a hundred, we are moving towards new fields where the rule is one barrel for three. We face a train-wreck between the increasing rates of global consumption and the declining rates of net exportable production.

The black line is the five-year moving average of the balance between annual production and consumption, represented by the black columns. The last year of production surplus was 1981, thirty years ago, and since then the world has drawn down on strategic stockpiles and inventory to meet consumption demand, at a trend rate that is now accelerating. The blue columns represent the European balance, which has benefited from North Sea oil and which is now running out. The red columns represent North America and Mexico, whose production has been deteriorating since 1984. But most frightening is the Asia/Pacific deficit, the yellow columns, which has soared over the last twenty years.

The chart clearly shows a picture of an imbalance between production and consumption that cannot continue much longer. The world is now caught between inflexible demand – because oil is vital to our very existence – and declining net production. This explains the oil price, which is the blue line in the second chart (I shall comment on gold in a moment).

There have been three phases: the first, when OPEC jacked up the price of oil; the second when more expensive non-OPEC fields came on stream putting a cap on prices, and finally the third, where prices have increased seven times so far. It is this third trend, from which there is no apparent escape. The chart is on a logarithmic scale, which means that prices have been rising at an exponential rate since 1998.

With the production/consumption imbalance set to deteriorate further, there can be only one result, and that is considerably higher prices. Based on BP’s statistics, which show that the world’s most vital commodity has been in a supply deficit for the last thirty years, the logical outcome is a price explosion. And with quantitative easing in the markets there will be extra money to pay higher prices, the consequences for global price inflation do not bear thinking about. On this evidence we can therefore confirm Chris Martenson’s analysis.

Living with an energy supply crisis will require a radical change in our lifestyles – downwards. The best financial protection from this event appears to be physical gold, which has tracked the price of oil reasonably well over the years as shown in the second chart, and can be expected to continue to do so. After all, the combination of the most rapid global monetary expansion in peace-time history and soaring oil prices is an inflationary disaster in the making.